DECISION

 

Copart, Inc. v. Stephen Page / BPMX LLC

Claim Number: FA2601002199079

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Copart, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Rob LeBlanc of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Stephen Page / BPMX LLC ("Respondent"), Texas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <copartai.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 11, 2026; Forum received payment on January 11, 2026.

 

On January 12, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <copartai.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On January 14, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 3, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@copartai.com. Also on January 14, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

Having received no formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On February 4, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2.  Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts trademark rights in COPART and alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The background facts pertinent to this decision are that:

1.       Complainant provides online motor vehicle auction services by reference to the trademark, COPART;

2.       Complainant is the proprietor of United States Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 3,941,221, registered April 5, 2011, for the mark COPART;

3.       Respondent registered the disputed domain name on December 22, 2025, concealing its identity by a privacy service; and

4.       the domain name is for sale via the Registrar's "Domain Broker service".

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(1)       the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)       the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

 

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademark rights. It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights. Since Complainant provides evidence of its USPTO registration for COPART, the Panel is satisfied that it has trademark rights (see, for example, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Periasami Malain, FA 705262 (Forum June 19, 2006) ("Complainant's registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office of the trademark, STATE FARM, establishes its rights in the STATE FARM mark pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).").

 

For the purposes of comparison, the non-distinctive gTLD, ".com" can be disregarded (see, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) finding that the addition of the top level of the domain name does not affect the determination of whether the compared terms are identical or confusingly similar).  The disputed domain name then takes the trademark and adds the known abbreviation, "ai" (artificial intelligence), being of no distinguishing value (see, for example, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018): ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); NextHome, Inc. v. Brad Smith, FA 2195190 (Forum Jan. 7, 2026) ("The Panel finds the domain name confusing similar to the trademark – not merely because it incorporates the trademark, as argued by [c]omplainant - but because it combines the trademark with the known abbreviation, "ai", and the gTLD, ".com", neither being of distinctive value").  The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark.

 

The Panel so finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

 

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

 

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000).

 

The name of the holder of the disputed domain name, as disclosed by the Registrar in consequence of these proceedings does not suggest that Respondent may be known by the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent has a trademark of its own which might explain creation of the domain name. Complainant states, and the Panel accepts, that the parties are unknown to each other outside these proceedings and that no permission has been given to Respondent to use the trademark. Finally, the evidence shows that the domain name is for sale.

 

Albeit that sale is depending on use of the Registrar's own domain name brokerage service, decisions under the Policy have long attributed a respondent with responsibility for all public-facing use or dealings in a domain name.  So, too, the offer to sell a domain name, without more, is generally regarded as a sign that there are no rights or interests in the name (see also, PN II, Inc. v. Nicole d'Aiguillon, D2024-5349 (WIPO February 24, 2025) finding no rights or legitimate interests where the disputed domain name resolved to a landing page hosted by the registrar indicating that the disputed domain name may be for sale because "[r]espondent has used, or allowed the use of, the disputed domain name only for … advertising the [r]egistrar's domain broker services." [emphasis added ]).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case. The onus shifts to Respondent to establish a legitimate interest in the domain name and, absent a Response, that case is not rebutted, and the Panel finds that Complainant has established the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith.

 

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established. The four specified circumstances are:

 

'(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

 

(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

 

(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

 

(iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to respondent's website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.'

 

The Panel finds that the circumstances support the application of paragraph 4(b)(i) above.  The Panel has already found the domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark.  On the evidence, the trademark is well known. There has been no genuine use of the domain name and it is difficult to conceive good faith use. There has been no Response. In terms of the Policy, the Panel makes the reasonable inference that the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring it to Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent's out-of-pocket registration costs.  

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <copartai.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

Dated: February 5, 2026